IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NO.6899 OF 2013 (L-PG) BETWEEN:
SRI S. Y. SHIVAPPA SON OF LATE YALAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, SHANUBIGANAHALLI, DODDAKAMARALLI POST, HARNAHHI HOBLI, PIRIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 107.
(BY SRI GOVINDARAJ K., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CNNL NO.4, HARANGI REHABILITATION SUB DIVISION, KUSHALANAGAR, KODAGU DISTRICT-573 202.
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR C.N.N.L. CAUVERY BHAVAN COMPLEX, ... APPELLANT GOKULAM 4TH STAGE, MYSURU-571 107.
3. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, HASSAN-573 201.
4. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT CHIKAMAGALUR DIVISON, CHIKAMAGALUR-573 137.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-3 AND R-4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NOS.15445-15446 OF 2013 DATED 8.10.2013 AND ETC.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 08.10.2013, in Writ Petition No.15445-15446 of 2013, respondent No.3 therein has filed the instant appeal.
2. The primary contention of the appellant is that the order of the learned Single Judge was based on the fact that the appellant herein was appointed by the State and therefore he was under the services of the State. However, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant was not under the services of the State, but was under the services of a Corporation viz., Cauvery Neeravari Nigam Limited. That the said fact was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge and hence should be considered herein.
3. It is therefore pleaded by the learned counsel that he may be permitted to move the learned Single Judge in a review petition and bring these facts to his notice. So far as this contention is concerned, we do not find it appropriate to opine on the same. If the appellant has a liberty in law, he is entitled to file such a petition. Suffice to hold that, it is highly improper for the Appellate Court to consider contentions for the first time.
4. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find it appropriate to accept the contention of the appellant for the first time before the appellate court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant is at liberty to pursue such remedies as available to him in law.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ/-